Unobserved_by_user_id subspecies

Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.

Platform (Android, iOS, Website): website

App version number, if a mobile app issue (shown under Settings or About):

Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : chrome

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages:

Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices: https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/):

Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.):

Go to https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=122609&unobserved_by_user_id=dan_johnson&view=species&iconic_taxa=Plant

This should show a list of plants dan_johnson has not observed, but it shows Ambrosia trifida which has been observed. There is a particular variety that hasn’t been observed, but it only listed the species which is confusing. If unobserved_by_user_id cares about varieties, it should show them in the list as varieties.

1 Like

in case anyone is wondering why the link above doesn’t bring back any results, it’s because it should be this instead: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=122609&unobserved_by_user_id=dan_johnson&view=species&iconic_taxa=Plantae.

i don’t really see a bug here.

the filter did what it was supposed to do. since you haven’t observed the subspecies, it returned the subspecies-level observation.

the species tab did what it was supposed to. it showed the unique leaf taxa (with species as the most granular rank) returned in the results.

that you’re seeing Ambrosia trifida in a species-level summary of observations whose taxa you’ve never observed – even though you’ve observed A. trifida – is a little unintuitive, but that’s just the way the page works…

what would your proposed “fix” be? would you want to see the species tab show things down to a subspecies level instead of stopping at the species level? or would you want the parameter to have not returned the A. trifida texana observation? or something else?

1 Like

It should either 1) list the unobserved taxon as the variety name (because in reality that’s what’s unobserved, I see no practical inconsistency with the tab being a “Species” display), or 2) don’t list the species as unobserved (since it was observed). I prefer #1.

let me just clarify.

your #1 proposal would effectively mean that for the leaf taxon algorithm, you want “leaves” to be determined based on whatever the most granular taxa are, not to be limited by species as the most granular leaf. moreover, that algorithm would function in the new way, regardless of whether or not the result set was created with the unobserved_by_user_id parameter.

so for example, if this was implemented, and i queried for all mallards at Arthur Storey Park (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=164230&subview=grid&taxon_id=6930&view=species), instead of seeing the species Anas platyrhynchos in the species tab, i would see A. p. domesticus in the species tab, since both wild and domestic ducks have been seen at the park, but wild is recorded at species and domestic is recorded at variety, and variety is the lower rank.

so understanding that that’s a potential problematic consequence of your proposal, are you still proposing that as your change? if so, i think you should write up a feature request for this (instead of a bug report) so that the pros and cons can be discussed with the wider community.

if knowing about the problematic consequences of that first proposal has made you decide to abandon that proposal, then let’s talk about your second proposal. because the Species tab in Explore screen is always going to list species that are returned in the Observations tab, if you want Ambrosia trifida to not show up in the Species tab, then that would necessarily mean that A. t. texana would not show in the Observations tab either. in other words, your second proposal would mean that the unobserved_by_user_id would bring back any taxa that you had not observed, unless that taxon was an unobserved subspecies/variety/etc. for which you had observed the species.

is that really what you mean for your second proposal? if so, i would again reframe this as a feature request (rather than a bug report) so that the broader community can chime in on whether this is a desired change or not.

if you’re still thinking about something different, please clarify. or if you’re thinking about a new approach, please share.